| From: | "Ross J(dot) Reedstrom" <reedstrm(at)rice(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Ross J(dot) Reedstrom" <reedstrm(at)rice(dot)edu>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Ben McMahan <mcmahanb(at)cs(dot)rice(dot)edu>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Turning the PLANNER off |
| Date: | 2002-10-31 18:34:54 |
| Message-ID: | 20021031183454.GA21457@wallace.ece.rice.edu |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 10:59:39PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> What's the basis for your assertion that it's "planning things that
> don't need it"? Given a JOIN-constrained query I do not believe the
> planner will look at any cases other than the intended join order.
Well, that was a loose choice of words - let's say the planner seems to
be taking awfully long to build an execution tree with only one choice
available.
> He can do whatever he wants, as long as he has no illusions about
> getting it accepted back into the sources ;-).
Understood - this would be a hacking tool only.
> What would probably be more useful is to do some profiling to understand
> why the planner is taking longer than he wants even with a
> JOIN-constrained query. I should think this would be pretty quick.
Yup, that targets the same question as above - anything 'uneeded' actually
happening in the planner? I'll send him off with this suggestion.
Ross
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ryan Mahoney | 2002-10-31 19:07:50 | Re: integer array, push and pop |
| Previous Message | Barry Lind | 2002-10-31 18:27:03 | Re: PG functions in Java: maybe use gcj? |